Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/08/22 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, August 22, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of June 27, 1990 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: a. PCZ-90-G: Consideration of request to rezone 2.5 acres located at 647 East Naples Street to R-1-7 George Merziotis b. PCS-90-04: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Elks Ridge, Chula Vista Tract 90-04 George Merziotis 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-90-27: Consideration of revocation of conditional use permit for the Office Club at 630 'L' Street Office Club 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-91-1: Consideration of an amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal Code amending Section 19.22 pertaining to road and easement width requirements that serve panhandle or flag lots - City Initiated 4. REFERRAL: Low density and estate housing 5. DISCUSSION: Briefing on Salt Creek Ranch issues (public hearing set for Special Meeting of Planning Commission on September 5, 1990) OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT: p.m. to the Joint Redevelopment Agency/Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 22, 1990 Page I 1. PUBLIC HEARING: a. PCZ-90-G: Consideration of reques to rezone 2.5 acres located a 647 East Naples Street to R-1-7 George merziotis b. PCS-90-04: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Elks Rid§e, Chula Vista Tract 90-04 - George Merziotis A. BACKGROUND The applicant for this public hearing has requested a continuance to the meeting of September 12, 1990. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to continue PCZ-90-G and PCS-90-04 to the meeting of September 12, 1990. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 22, 1990 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of revocation of Conditional Use Permit for a retail distribution center for office products and supplies at 630 L Street PCC-90-27, Office Club, Inc. A. BACKGROUND Office Club, Inc. was granted a conditional use permit, PCC-90-27, on March 27, 1990, to operate a retail distribution center for office products and supplies on a site located at 630 L Street. The conditional use permit for this property was granted pursuant to the applicant meeting certain landscape requirements. The applicant has failed to comply with these conditions. Specifically, Condition 4 of Resolution No. 15573, copy attached, adopted by the City Council on March 27, 1990, required the applicant to submit landscape and irrigation plans to the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. The applicant submitted the required landscape and irrigation plans and they were approved by the City Landscape Architect. To date, the applicant has failed to implement these plans. Therefore, he is conducting his business in violation of the City Code and Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-27. The applicant is well aware of the aforementioned required landscape and irrigation improvements. Staff met with the applicant and provided written notice of the issue at hand. He was advised as early as June 13, 1990, of the fact that the City would consider initiating action to revoke PCC-90-27, if the required landscape and irrigation improvements were not installed by July 1, 1990. Staff believes the applicant has had ample notice and a reasonable amount of time to meet the conditions of his conditional use permit, but has failed to do so. Please note that staff contacted the applicant on August 8, 1990, and he indicated there was a question as to whether he or the property owner should bear the cost of the landscaping improvements.. Installation of the required improvements has been delayed pending resolution of the issue. The applicant stated that although the matter has not been resolved he will begin installation of the landscape improvements on August 9, 1990. Staff will monitor this project and provide an oral status report to the Commission at its hearing of August 22. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that the applicant has failed to comply with implementation of Condition 4 of Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-27. 2. Revoke said Permit PCC-90-27, and order the business closed within 30 days following the Commission's action, and the premises vacated within 60 days of said action. WPC 8117P SIERRA WAY AREA ARIZONA I ! ...... .~__ I'40SS STED BUTT RESOLUTION NO. 15573 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-27 FOR OFFICE CLUB, INC. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, Office Club, Inc. is requesting the conversion of the building formerly housing a portion of the Western Lumber and Building Materials Company to a retail office products and supplies distribution center (Office Club) on property containing 1.4 acres and located on the south side of "L" Street west of Broadway, and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-37, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project and based on the Initial Study, including a Traffic Study, and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-37, and );HEREAS, on March 14, 1990, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that Council approve the conditional use permit in accordance with Resolution PCC-90-27. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-27 for Office Club, Inc. to establish a retail distribution center for office products and supplies in an existing building on 1.4 acres at 630 "L" Street in the I-1 Limited Industrial Zone based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The use at this location will provide a convenient outlet for the purchase of office furniture, products and supplies. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The available parking is' adequate to serve the use as conditioned, and there are no other foreseeable detrimental impacts. Resolution No. 15573 Page 2 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The use shall comply with all applicable conditions, codes and regulations prior to the issuance of building and/or occupancy permits. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The proposal is consistent with City policy for light industrial areas. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-27 is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the use of the adjoining acreage, the applicant shall file and obtain City approval of a parcel map dividing the subject property from the larger parcel. 2. A revised site plan shall be submitted incorporating an enclosed trash area and cart storage facilities as well as double-striping of the parking area. 3. Building colors and sign colors and copy shall be subject to staff design review unless appealed to the Design Review Committee. 4. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. 5. No outdoor storage of materials is authorized by this permit. 6. The remaining 1.1 acre parcel shall not be used as an adjunct to the use authorized by this permit. Said parcel shall be kept free of debris and shall remain unused until such time as new land use activities in accordance with the I-L Zone are authorized by the City. 7. The following are Code requirements submitted by the Engineering Department for information only: a) Sewer and traffic signal fees will be assessed when the building permit is issued. b) A construction permit for work performed in the street right-of-way. c) Public improvements for street widening including, but not limited to: Resolution No. 15§73 Page 3 A. Curb, gutter and sidewalk B. Standard.driveway approach C. Asphalt concrete paving D. Raised concrete median d) Seven-foot street dedication along "L" Street. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert Letter Inomas a. Harron Director of Planning City Attorney Resolution No. 15573 ~-~ ~-- Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 27th day of March, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Malcolm, McCandliss, Moore, Cox NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Nader ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None R , MaYor ATTEST: Beverly ~{. Authelet, Cit~y Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15573 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 27th day of March, 1990. Executed this 27th day of March, 1990. Beverly ~. Authelet, City Clerk CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT IFPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS HICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING OMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The fol)owing information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No ~<~ If yes, please indicate person(s) ~as: ~ "Any i~ firm, copartnersh'~p, Joint venture ~^~ I~a'a~luabjv f~r~ht~e_rna_L..~o~r~aniz.a.tion,.corpor.ation: estate: t.~ust, receive'r,'~j~j~: i~.-,,~ -,,?..~¥,:, cuuncy, c~ty anu county, c)ty, munic.~pality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combi at,on act~n as a unit." (NOTE. Attach additiona, pages as necessary_..) ~Z~~ vr~nt or ~ype name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 22, 1990 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-91-1; Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 19.22 of the Municipal Code amendinq road and easement width requirements that serve panhandle or flat lots - City initiated A. BACKGROUND 1. The proposed amendment would retain the required road width for panhandle or flag lots serving two to four lots at 20 ft. However, five or more lots would be required to have a minimum width of 24 feet in accordance with private street standards outlined in the City's Subdivision Manual. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed amendment is a Class 3 exemption from environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a motion recommending that City Council approve the following amendment to the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A. C. DISCUSSION Currently, both the City's Municipal Code and Subdivision Manual contain sections pertaining to private road standards. On June 5, 1979, City Council adopted ordinance 1968 amending the Municipal Code by establishing standards and regulations governing the development of panhandle and flag lots served by a private road or easement. On February 22, 1983, City Council approved revision of the City's Subdivision Manual to include a section on design criteria for private streets. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to clarify when standards outlined in the Municipal Code for easements or roads serving panhandle or flat lots are used versus design criteria and standards for private streets outlined in the City's Subdivision Manual. The Planning and Engineering Departments have reached agreement that a 20 foot road width is adequate to serve panhandle lots ranging from two to four lots in size. Such development may be processed under a parcel map provision. For projects of five or more lots, requiring the filing of a Tentative Subdivision Map, it was agreed that the 24 foot road width standards are appropriate and should adhere to the design criteria and standards outlined in the "Private Streets" section of the City's Subdivision Manual. WPC 8054P EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 19.22 R-E-RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONE 19.22.150 Panhandle lots, flag lots, or lots served by an easement- Requirements and conditions. A. Panhandle lots, flag lots or lots served by an easement proposed within a subdivision shall meet the criteria contained in this section. B. No lot may be created or developed under this provision which could otherwise be served by a public street unless approved by the director of planning and the city engineer. C. All development permitted under this provision shall be subject to the regulations and requirements of this title except as otherwise regulated in this section. D. The division of any property under this provision shall be subject to the regulations of the State Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance of the city. E. Not more than four lots served by a private road or easement shall be allowed under this provision unless this restriction is waived by the director of planning or city council. F. The responsibility for the maintenance and cost of maintenance of all common areas, roads or easements and guest parking areas shall be shared under contractual agreement by the property owner of each lot; this shall be accomplished through the formation of a homeowner's association. G. Development criteria: 1. Road and easement widths shall be as follows: one lot, fifteen feet; two ~//~JTt/b//~X/~/~/ to four lots, twenty feet; five or more lots, twenty-four feet, in accordance with privatp street standards as outlined in City's Subdivision Manual. These widths may be increased if it is determined by the director of planning that a sidewalk is required. 2. All driveways, guest parking areas and roadways shall be paved with a minimum of five inches of portland concrete cement. 3. Each lot shall contain an area not less than the minimum lot size of the underlying zone exclusive of all private roads, common areas and guest parking areas. 4. All onsite utilities shall be undergrounded. 5. Each dwelling shall be connected to a gravity sewer unless otherwise approved by the city engineer. 6. An onsite fire hydrant may be required by the fire department when such is deemed necessary. 7. Guest parking shall be provided as follows: one lot, one space; two lots, three spaces; three lots, five spaces, four lots, six spaces. The individual driveways to the garage shall not be construed as meeting the guest parking requirement. 8. Accessory structures shall not be located closer than ten feet to any dwelling located on adjacent property. 9. The following setbacks shall be observed: a. Front Yard. Fifteen feet from any access drive and guest parking areas; b. Any garage facing an access drive shall be a minimum of twenty-two feet from the drive, c. Side Yard. Not less than that required by the underlying zone; d. Rear Yard. Not less than that required by the underlying zone upon initial construction. 10. A minimum five-foot-high fence shall be provided on each side of the private drive behind the front setback and on those property lines abutting adjoining properties. This requirement may be modified or waived by the director of planning if it is found that said fence is not necessary for the protection of the adjoining properties. 11. If the property is graded to create a building pad for each lot, the minimum level area (no slope over five percent} of each pad shall be not less than eighty percent of the minimum lot size of the underlying zone, but in no case shall the minimum area be less than five thousand square feet. Development proposed on existing natural topography, having an average natural slope of ten percent or greater, and with less than ten percent of the site to be graded, shall be subject to the approval of the director of planning, who shall consider whether such development will adversely affect adjacent properties or development. 12. Guest parking areas shall be adequately screened from onsite and adjacent residential properties. H. No garage conversions shall be permitted. I. Development shall be subject to site plan and architectural approval of the director of planning. (Ord. 1868 § 2 (part), 1979.) WPC 8055P City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of August 22, 1990 4. REFERRAL: Low density and estate housing A. BACKGROUND On June 27, 1990, the Planning Commission requested that staff prepare an analysis and proposed guidelines for designation of housing types in the "low density" General Plan land use category, and specifically to propose a definition of an "estate housing" to be used in this context. On July 10, 1990, the City Council referred the same matter to staff, and requested that staff consult with the Planning Commission prior to forwarding recommendations to the City Council. The "low density" residential category has been defined in the General Plan as having a range of 0.5 to 3 dwelling units per gross acre, and a "midpoint" density of 2 dwelling units per acre has been utilized for this category. The text of the General Plan describes the overall character of the low density category as follows: "This category includes single family detached dwellings on large rural, and estate-type lots. This is the predominant character of existing residential neighborhoods within and adjacent to Sweetwater Valley. This is also the appropriate residential land use for areas with variable terrain or relatively steep slopes and the areas adjacent to the proposed Greenbelt. In addition, under the concept of cluster development, single family detached dwellings on minimum 7,000 square foot lots may be permitted." With regard to the clustering of development, the General Plan has the following policies which define the types of cluster development that would be allowed in "low density" category: "1. The clustering shall result in a housing type which is consistent with those prescribed for the residential land use category in Section 4.1. (of the General Plan). 2. The site plan that results from clustering shall retain the same overall character as that described in the General Plan residential land use category. The introduction of some units characteristic of higher density types within the categories is permitted, as long as the predominant character of the project remains the same as the underlying General Plan category. 3. The number of units permitted within the gross acreage of the project shall not increase through clustering. 4. The maximum net density within any residential cluster shall not exceed; a. 4.5 units per net acre in the low density range b. 10 units per net acre for the low-medium density range." City Planning Commission-- -, Page 2 Agenda Item for Meeting 'August 22, 1990 B. ANALYSIS 1. "Estate" Housing In order to apply the policies referenced above, it is necessary to further define the "estate housing" type. In reviewing this matter, consideration was given to the City's existing "Residential Estates" (R-E) zoning category (Section 19.22 of the City's Zoning Code). The stated purpose of this zone is "to promote and preserve an open, rural environment on large parcels of land. The R-E zone is designed to accommodate suburban single family homes and compatible agricultural uses with requirements for the community services and facilities appurtenant thereto." This purpose appears to be consistent with the character of development described in the "low density" category of the General Plan. The R-E zone classification calls for a minimum lot area of 20,000 sq. ft. (approximately 1/2 acre). However, the R-E zone also permits a range of lot sizes, as follows: "In the R-E zone, if the overall net density of lots per acre meets the requirements of the particular zone classification, the minimum lot size may be reduced to 75% of said minimum for not more than 25% of the lots within the area being subdivided." Therefore, an area which is zoned R-E could include up to 25% of the lots in the 15,000 sq. ft. (approximately 1/3 acre) range, as long as a sufficient number of larger lots are included so that the resulting net density is equivalent to that which would result from 20,000 sq. ft. lots on the entire site. This type of density mix could therefore include a mix of 1/3 acre, 1/2 acre, 1 acre, and larger lots. Staff feels that this type of residential estate density mix would be consistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan, while providing a degree of flexibility in the site planning process. An alternative to this approach would be to set more specific "low- density residential" categories, to be applied either at the General Plan or General Development Plan level. For example, the City could establish a "low-density-rural" category with a density range of 0.5 to 1 unit per gross acre, or other specific subcategories. While this would provide greater certainty regarding rural-type densities at an earlier stage in the planning process, it would be necessary to do more advanced topographic analysis and site evaluation, which is normally done at the Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA) level, unless development patterns have already been established in a given area. Staff would recommend that this alternative not be pursued. 2. Cluster Development As noted earlier in the report, the General Plan allows clustering of development in the "low density" residential areas. However, the policy on clustering requires that "the predominant character of the project remains the same as the underlying General Plan category." Therefore, while clustered development and smaller lot sizes are permissible in the "low density" areas, it is important that the majority of areas designated as "low density" within a project be reserved for "estate" residential development. City Planning Commissir~'~ ~ Page 3 Agenda Item for Meeting ~f August 22, 1990 It should be further noted that clustering is not a mechanism for the achievement of higher dwelling unit yields, but a method of improving the townscape planning or livability of a project. While the actual lots might be smaller in area than those within a standard residential subdivision, the area of the land saved through the utilization of clustering must be marshalled into usable, "in project" common greens or private parks. The common green should directly serve, and be adjacent to all of the lots within the cluster project. 3. Reduced Street Standards In conjunction with a review of a proposed estate housing definition, staff also considered the possibility of modifying other development standards to reinforce the concept of "estate character" within residential projects. In discussions between Planning and Public Works Departments, consideration was given to reduced street and sidewalk standards in projects that are designated exclusively for estate-type densities. While we are not recommending adoption of specific standards at this time, it was agreed by both departments that, on a case-by-case basis, consideration could be given to reduced standards during the SPA plan review. C. RECOMMENDATIONS In order to implement a consistent policy regarding housing types in projects which include "low density residential" General Plan designations, it is proposed that the following guidelines be endorsed by the Planning Commission and forwarded on to the City Council for final action: 1. In projects containing a "low density residential" General Plan land use designation, the predominant character of development in those areas designated as "low density" shall be estate housing. The General Development Plan for such projects shall designate developable areas within the project which will be restricted to "low density-estate" housing types. Such areas shall be limited to densities and lot sizes which are consistent with the "Residential Estates" (R-E) zoning classification. 2. The General Development Plan may also designate areas within the project where residential development with lot sizes smaller than "estate housing" standards may be allowed, through the use of clustering or other density arrangements which are consistent with General Plan policies. These areas shall be designated as "low density-general" in the General Development Plan. Areas containing this designation shall be limited, so that the predominant character of the area is "estate." 3. In the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan for a project, the density categories for housing types within the low density areas shall be further refined, in order to ensure an appropriate mix of estate lot sizes. 4. In the SPA plan, consideration will be given to reduced street and sidewalk standards for local streets in the "low density-estate" areas, based on consideration of projected traffic volumes, topography, public safety, street-maintenance costs, townscape planning, and other unique characteristics of such areas.